ライフサイエンスコーパス: metoprolol

1 enol-induced cell death that is abrogated by metoprolol.

2 lizations for HF or death when compared with metoprolol.

3 ing carvedilol compared with those receiving metoprolol.

4 ndent relationship in carvedilol, but not in metoprolol.

5 tionship was found in carvedilol, but not in metoprolol.

6 ropriate ATP and shock therapy compared with metoprolol.

7 onfirmed in healthy wild-type mice receiving metoprolol.

8 y ranged from 0.9% for metformin to 2.5% for metoprolol.

9 raction between age group and treatment with metoprolol.

10 oncurrent administration of the beta-blocker metoprolol.

11 cation with oral atenolol and/or intravenous metoprolol.

12 s was significantly reduced by allocation to metoprolol.

13 at carvedilol extends survival compared with metoprolol.

14 nse to adrenergic stimuli when compared with metoprolol.

15 ficantly lower than in patients treated with metoprolol.

16 nate (CGP20712A), betaxolol, bisoprolol, and metoprolol.

17 l; ramipril vs metoprolol; and amlodipine vs metoprolol.

18 imone, whereas 80% tolerated the addition of metoprolol.

19 that was normalized by nebivolol but not by metoprolol.

20 patients initiating atenolol, acebutolol, or metoprolol.

21 and was significantly reduced by intravenous metoprolol.

22 The mean (SD) HbA1c increased with metoprolol (0.15% [0.04%]; P<.001) but not carvedilol (0

23 beats min-1, respectively, with and without metoprolol (0.16 +/- 0.01 mg kg(-1); mean +/- S.E.M.) or

24 1 on carvedilol and in 1160 (76%) of 1518 on metoprolol (0.94 [0.86-1.02], p=0.122).

25 ere repeated with beta1-adrenergic blockade (metoprolol, 0.15 +/- 0.003 mg kg(-1)) or parasympathetic

26 ial infarction-induced CHF were treated with metoprolol (1.5 mg.kg-1.

27 the beta1-adrenergic receptor blocking agent metoprolol (1.5 mg/kg, intravenous), which diminished T-

28 /- 1.1 s(-1); dobutamine: 3.4 +/- 2.3 s(-1); metoprolol: 1.0 +/- 0.4 s(-1); p < 0.05).

29 Compared with placebo, metoprolol (100+/-53 mg/d) decreased heart rate; mean di

30 ade through daily intraperitoneal injection (metoprolol, 100 mg x kg(-1); atenolol, 6 mg x kg(-1)) or

31 nificantly lower in patients treated with IV metoprolol (11% vs. 27%, p = 0.006).

32 ed in a lower von Willebrand factor than did metoprolol (149% +/- 13% vs. 157% +/- 13%, respectively,

33 icle [LV]) by CMR did not differ between the metoprolol (15.3 +/- 11.0%) and placebo groups (14.9 +/-

34 oventricular block were randomized 1:1 to IV metoprolol (2 x 5-mg bolus) or matched placebo before PP

35 ed with carvedilol (-9.1%; P = .004) but not metoprolol (-2.0%; P = .48); the between-group differenc

36 e United States, bisoprolol, carvedilol, and metoprolol; 2 of these, carvedilol and metoprolol, have

37 d with carvedilol than in those treated with metoprolol (20 [range 2.5 to 30] versus 5 [range 2.5 to

38 he animal study, the long-interval group (IV metoprolol 25 min before reperfusion) had the smallest i

39 renoceptor blockade (intracerebroventricular metoprolol, 25 microg) to achieve approximately 20% hear

40 mice were treated with the beta1-AR blocker metoprolol (270 mg/kg*d).

41 Metoprolol (30 microg, icv) depressed the change in CO d

42 to the high %F region; propranolol (26%) and metoprolol (38%) to medium %F region; and verapamil (22%

43 al ligation and puncture was similar between metoprolol (40%; n = 10) and saline (50%; n = 10) pretre

44 VEF) at the 6 months MRI was higher after IV metoprolol (48.7 +/- 9.9% vs. 45.0 +/- 11.7% in control

45 nitial treatment with either a beta-blocker (metoprolol 50-200 mg/d; n = 441), an angiotensin-convert

46 gle oral dose of placebo, felodipine (5 mg), metoprolol (50 mg), or enalapril (10 mg).

47 217), ramipril, 2.5 to 10 mg/d (n = 436), or metoprolol, 50 to 200 mg/d (n = 441), with other agents

48 was less frequent with carvedilol than with metoprolol (6.4% vs 10.3%; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.3

49 They were randomized to metoprolol (7.5 mg during myocardial infarction) or plac

50 ersus 68 mg; carvedilol: 44 mg versus 20 mg; metoprolol: 80 mg versus 72 mg; diltiazem: 212 mg versus

51 re not modified by pretreating myocytes with metoprolol (a beta(1)-AR antagonist) or nadolol (a beta(

52 We compared the effects of nebivolol with metoprolol, a first-generation beta1-selective beta-bloc

53 g II in patients treated with carvedilol and metoprolol, a selective beta-antagonist.

54 Metoprolol, a specific beta1-adrenoceptor antagonist, al

55 Metoprolol achieved different effects in patients with C

56 Four TPs (carbamazepine-10,11-epoxide, metoprolol acid, 1-naphthol, and saluamine) were exclusi

57 Metoprolol acts during early phases of neutrophil recrui

58 The prevailing view has been that metoprolol acts mainly on cardiomyocytes.

59 dy the long-term effects of intravenous (IV) metoprolol administration before reperfusion on left ven

60 Early metoprolol administration during acute coronary occlusio

61 Metoprolol administration starting 48 hours after infarc

62 aARKct-mediated beneficial effects, although metoprolol alone, despite not improving contractility, p

63 ductions in debrisoquine 4-hydroxylation and metoprolol alpha-hydroxylation were observed using CYP2D

64 all three drugs lowered blood pressure, and metoprolol also lowered heart rate.

65 grip -3.5 U for carvedilol versus -1.2 U for metoprolol and -2.2 U for placebo, P=0.15; cold pressor

66 -8.9 U for carvedilol versus 9.0+/-2.7 U for metoprolol and 8.2+/-5.8 U for placebo, P<0.05).

67 However, compared with the metoprolol and amlodipine groups, the ramipril group man

68 Treatment of mice with metoprolol and captopril reduced DCM in Ca(v)1.2(I1624E)

69 Metoprolol and carvedilol administered 6 d after MI for

70 This study sought to compare the effects of metoprolol and carvedilol in the MADIT-CRT (Multicenter

71 may contribute to the beneficial effects of metoprolol and carvedilol on T-tubule remodeling.

72 Metoprolol and carvedilol were well tolerated, and both

73 reinfarction at 24 hours in the intravenous metoprolol and control groups was 7.1% and 12.3%, respec

74 s from 18+/-6.3% to 23+/-8.7% (P<0.005) with metoprolol and from 19+/-8.5% to 25+/-9.9% (P<0.0005) wi

75 or death occurred in 30% of the patients on metoprolol and in 23% on carvedilol.

76 (n = 64); it was significantly lower in the metoprolol and losartan groups compared with the control

77 No significant difference was found when the metoprolol and losartan groups were directly compared (P

78 tly better QTc shortening effect compared to metoprolol and nadolol, especially in patients with prol

79 urve was shifted upward and rightward in the metoprolol and no drug conditions, while the control of

80 ses to adrenergic stimuli when compared with metoprolol and placebo (isometric handgrip -3.5 U for ca

81 Physiologically relevant concentrations of metoprolol and propranolol in blood samples were measure

82 ments, biotransformation rates increased for metoprolol and propranolol when algal photosynthesis was

83 ckers showed no association with recurrence, metoprolol and sotalol were associated with increased re

84 Metoprolol and sotalol were not biodegraded by the nitri

85 response such as the beta-adrenergic blocker metoprolol and the beta-adrenergic agonist isoproterenol

86 ontrol (no drug), beta1-adrenergic blockade (metoprolol) and parasympathetic blockade (glycopyrrolate

87 ree beta-blockers (carvedilol, bucindolol or metoprolol) and the dose was advanced to the maximum tol

88 etected, and those positively charged (e.g., metoprolol) and/or highly hydrophobic (e.g., tamoxifen)

89 initial anti-hypertensive therapy (ramipril, metoprolol, and amlodipine) and two levels of BP control

90 -methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,5,6-tetrahydropyridine, metoprolol, and bufuralol between reductase-, cumene hyd

91 drugs (brain natriuretic peptide, exenatide, metoprolol, and esmolol) stand unchallenged to date in r

92 During summer, atenolol, metoprolol, and propranolol were rapidly attenuated in t

93 te of three selected beta blockers-atenolol, metoprolol, and sotalol-was examined during nitrificatio

94 files of several drugs, including midazolam, metoprolol, and tolbutamide.

95 nism in the pilot-scale system for atenolol, metoprolol, and trimethoprim, while sulfamethoxazole and

96 pite similar extent of myocardium at risk in metoprolol- and placebo-treated pigs (30.9% of LV versus

97 ecified: lower vs usual BP goal; ramipril vs metoprolol; and amlodipine vs metoprolol.

98 ive, whereas symptomatic patients started on metoprolol are at a significantly higher risk for BCEs.

99 nnel blocker (amlodipine) or a beta-blocker (metoprolol) as initial therapy.

100 ic intracerebroventricular administration of metoprolol) attenuates the progression of left ventricul

101 stricted STEMI population, early intravenous metoprolol before PPCI was not associated with a reducti

102 ous coronary intervention, early intravenous metoprolol before reperfusion reduced infarct size and i

103 class </=II STEMI undergoing pPCI, early IV metoprolol before reperfusion resulted in higher long-te

104 vivo interaction of the cardiovascular drugs metoprolol (beta-blocker) and ramipril (ACE inhibitor) w

105 ndomized to the adrenergic-receptor blockers metoprolol (beta1-selective), metoprolol+doxazosin (beta

106 cantly higher concentrations than ionic PCs (metoprolol, bezafibrate, clofibric acid, diclofenac, gem

107 In contrast, metoprolol, bisoprolol, and CGP-20712 [1-[2-((3-carbamoy

108 g IV metoprolol), the median time from 15 mg metoprolol bolus to reperfusion was 53 min.

109 groups, split by the median time from 15 mg metoprolol bolus to reperfusion.

110 prolol therapy having either a long or short metoprolol bolus-to-reperfusion interval.

111 difference in the time from symptom onset to metoprolol bolus.

112 ocker propranolol and the beta(1)-antagonist metoprolol both increased myocardial sympathetic axon de

113 stically increased by metoprolol/ramipril or metoprolol/bradykinin (the latter increased after ACE in

114 Compared with metoprolol, carvedilol resulted in greater reduction of

115 Compared with metoprolol, carvedilol was associated with fewer days lo

116 Compared with vehicle CHF rats (n=19), metoprolol CHF rats (n=18) had lower basal values of mea

117 g short-term isotonic saline volume loading, metoprolol CHF rats excreted 54+/-4% more of the sodium

118 During long-term dietary sodium loading, metoprolol CHF rats retained 28+/-3% less sodium than ve

119 survival for symptomatic patients receiving metoprolol compared to propranolol/nadolol.

120 f BCEs for symptomatic patients initiated on metoprolol compared to users of the other 2 beta-blocker

121 onance imaging was smaller after intravenous metoprolol compared with control (25.6 +/- 15.3 versus 3

122 oses of carvedilol and metoprolol succinate (metoprolol controlled release/extended release [CR/XL])

123 ,988 patients were enrolled in the MERIT-HF (Metoprolol Controlled-Release Randomized Intervention Tr

124 rpose of which was to evaluate the effect of metoprolol controlled-release/extended-release (CR/XL) i

125 to determine whether early administration of metoprolol could increase myocardial salvage, measured a

126 0 days compared with 8.1% of those receiving metoprolol CR/XL (P=0.037 unadjusted, P=NS adjusted); co

127 Metoprolol CR/XL also reduced the number of hospitalizat

128 When carefully titrated, metoprolol CR/XL can be given safely to the overwhelming

129 Treatment with metoprolol CR/XL compared to placebo resulted in signifi

130 The beneficial effects of metoprolol CR/XL extend to women with heart failure, inc

131 The NYHA functional class improved in the metoprolol CR/XL group compared with placebo (p = 0.0031

132 Treatment with metoprolol CR/XL in women resulted in a 21% reduction in

133 post hoc analysis to evaluate the effect of metoprolol CR/XL on outcome in women (n=898), including

134 SA subgroup of patients from Metoprolol CR/XL Randomized Intervention Trial in chroni

135 at evidence of clinical deterioration in the Metoprolol CR/XL Randomized Intervention Trial in Conges

136 talizations for worsening heart failure with metoprolol CR/XL treatment as those patients included in

137 Metoprolol CR/XL was well tolerated, with 31% fewer pati

138 nous norepinephrine to a greater extent than metoprolol CR/XL.

139 odynamic and metabolic effects compared with metoprolol CR/XL.

140 chronic treatment with the betaAR antagonist metoprolol (CSQ/betaARKct nontreated vs. CSQ/betaARKct m

141 Metoprolol decreased and glycopyrrolate increased HR and

142 The beta1AR blocker metoprolol did not affect the former and preserved EF to

143 nervous system beta1-adrenoceptor blockade (metoprolol) did not reduce plasma cytokines or mortality

144 during exercise and while at rest: atenolol, metoprolol, diltiazem, and verapamil (drugs listed alpha

145 Thus, metoprolol displays favorable hemodynamic and metabolic

146 eptor blockers metoprolol (beta1-selective), metoprolol+doxazosin (beta1/alpha1), or carvedilol (beta

147 Early IV metoprolol during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarc

148 ficant (ramipril) or a modestly aggravating (metoprolol) effect, their combined administration exacer

149 rsial, even in the wake of the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET).

150 rolol versus carvedilol in the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET).

151 comparative trial to date-the Carvedilol or Metoprolol European Trial-has compared carvedilol with s

152 On a molecular level, metoprolol expectedly decreased protein kinase A-depende

153 the short-interval group, those with longer metoprolol exposure had smaller infarcts (22.9 g vs. 28.

154 ne Survival Evaluation], PRAISE-2, MERIT-HF [Metoprolol Extended Release Randomized Intervention Tria

155 MERIT-HF (Metoprolol Extended-Release Randomized Intervention Tria

156 All subjects were treated with carvedilol or metoprolol for at least 3 months.

157 mized to equipotent dosages of carvedilol or metoprolol for two 6-wk periods.

158 ator (ICD) was significantly lower in the IV metoprolol group (7% vs. 20%, p = 0.012).

159 ction fraction was higher in the intravenous metoprolol group (adjusted difference, 2.67%; 95% confid

160 admission was significantly lower in the IV metoprolol group (HR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.015 to 0.95; p = 0

161 on fraction by CMR was 51.0 +/- 10.9% in the metoprolol group and 51.6 +/- 10.8% in the placebo group

162 were 2 adverse cardiovascular events in the metoprolol group and none in the placebo group.

163 alone, there were 1774 (7.7%) deaths in the metoprolol group versus 1797 (7.8%) in the placebo group

164 nd malignant arrhythmias was 10.8% in the IV metoprolol group versus 18.3% in the control group, adju

165 nce of malignant arrhythmias was 3.6% in the metoprolol group versus 6.9% in placebo (p = 0.050).

166 and were enrolled: 108 were assigned to the metoprolol group, 102 to the losartan group, and 110 to

167 the carvedilol group and 1066 (36.8%) in the metoprolol group.

168 intervals (CIs), 0.09-0.37; P < 0.001 in the metoprolol group; and 0.29, 95% CI, 0.16-0.52; P < 0.001

169 composite outcome between the amlodipine and metoprolol groups.

170 rdiac arrest, 2166 (9.4%) patients allocated metoprolol had at least one such event compared with 226

171 , and metoprolol; 2 of these, carvedilol and metoprolol, have Food and Drug Administration indication

172 11) for carvedilol and 40% (600 of 1518) for metoprolol (hazard ratio 0.83 [95% CI 0.74-0.93], p=0.00

173 risk of inappropriate therapy compared with metoprolol (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.64 [95% confidence inte

174 alization for HF or death when compared with metoprolol (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70, [95% confidence int

175 Propranolol and metoprolol (highly permeable compounds) and atenolol (lo

176 ed with increased recurrence rates (adjusted metoprolol HR = 1.5, 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8; adjusted sotalo

177 patients receiving carvedilol compared with metoprolol (HR: 0.50 [95% CI: 0.32 to 0.81]; p = 0.004).

178 phenotype was corrected by nebivolol but not metoprolol in a dose-dependent fashion.

179 mly assigned to receive either carvedilol or metoprolol in addition to standard therapy for CHF.

180 The METOCARD-CNIC (Effect of Metoprolol in Cardioprotection During an Acute Myocardia

181 st that labetalol shares the same pathway as metoprolol in enhancing GABAergic transmission via an in

182 nse to adrenergic stimuli when compared with metoprolol in heart failure subjects.

183 Nebivolol was more potent than metoprolol in improving cardiac function, pulmonary vasc

184 dial Infarction 28], COMMIT [Clopidogrel and Metoprolol in Myocardial Infarction Trial], and CHARISMA

185 ergic stimuli when compared with placebo and metoprolol in normal subjects, whereas chronic administr

186 onents of the metabolic syndrome relative to metoprolol in participants with DM and hypertension.

187 re effective than the selective beta-blocker metoprolol in reducing the risk of thromboembolic events

188 neuronal cell cultures, both propranolol and metoprolol increased axon outgrowth but the beta(2)-bloc

189 In patients with asymptomatic AS, metoprolol increases systolic ejection time and reduces

190 Nebivolol but not metoprolol induced endothelium-dependent and nitric oxid

191 ted after baseline by blood, dobutamine, and metoprolol infusion), we compared differences in SR of E

192 mal by blood administration, dobutamine, and metoprolol infusion.

193 Metoprolol inhibits neutrophil migration in an ADRB1-dep

194 Metoprolol inhibits neutrophil-platelet interactions in

195 ndergoing primary angioplasty, the sooner IV metoprolol is administered in the course of infarction,

196 sure in cardiomyopathy patients treated with metoprolol is an indicator of improvement in LV diastoli

197 Although the second-generation compound metoprolol is beta1-selective, the third-generation comp

198 In the presence of metoprolol, labetalol-induced increase in sIPSC frequenc

199 rugs implicated included propofol, fentanyl, metoprolol, lorazepam, hydralazine, and furosemide.

200 In those receiving metoprolol, LV end-diastolic pressure decreased (P=0.001

201 were randomized to three months therapy with metoprolol (MET, 25 mg twice daily, n = 7) or to no ther

202 e to direct beta1AR-blockade, agents such as metoprolol (Meto) may improve post-myocardial infarction

203 (target dose 25 mg twice daily) and 1518 to metoprolol (metoprolol tartrate, target dose 50 mg twice

204 patients initiated on propranolol (n = 134), metoprolol (n = 147), and nadolol (n = 101) were analyze

205 2 +/- 12 years; 75% male) were randomized to metoprolol (n = 336) or placebo (n = 346).

206 onset were randomized to receive intravenous metoprolol (n=131) or not (control, n=139) before reperf

207 Addition of metoprolol neither enhanced nor decreased betaARKct-medi

208 hoc analysis of the METOCARD-CNIC (effect of METOprolol of CARDioproteCtioN during an acute myocardia

209 med to compare the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcome.

210 The impact of carvedilol and metoprolol on inappropriate therapy in heart failure pat

211 as to evaluate the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol on the endpoint of inappropriate implantable

212 ile for this compound (comparable to that of metoprolol or caffeine) and an estimated oral fraction a

213 22%, respectively, of the patients receiving metoprolol or carvedilol (HR: 0.80 [95% CI: 0.63 to 1.00

214 All patients receiving either metoprolol or carvedilol in the MADIT-CRT study were ide

215 h a beta-adrenergic-receptor blocking agent (metoprolol or carvedilol) or placebo.

216 bucindolol that does not seem to occur with metoprolol or carvedilol.

217 ich randomized anterior STEMI patients to IV metoprolol or control before mechanical reperfusion.

218 h) and randomized them to pre-reperfusion IV metoprolol or control group.

219 o assess whether prophylactic treatment with metoprolol or losartan, initiated soon after lung cancer

220 A prophylactic treatment with metoprolol or losartan, initiated soon after lung cancer

221 We administered oral metoprolol or no therapy to rats for 12 weeks after larg

222 lycopyrrolate) and beta-adrenergic blockade (metoprolol or propranalol) conditions, while beat-to-bea

223 e treated with beta-AR blockers (carvedilol, metoprolol, or atenolol), 9 from patients with heart fai

224 dy groups: SHAM (n = 10), TAC (n = 12), MET (metoprolol, positive drug treatment, n = 7) and XML (XML

225 or short (-5 min) pre-perfusion interval, IV metoprolol post-reperfusion (+60 min), or IV vehicle.

226 ith no difference in response between either metoprolol preparation in the 27 patients (MT [14], MS [

227 Metoprolol pretreatment reduced hepatic expression of pr

228 Administration of the beta-blocker metoprolol prevented the activation of NFAT and the redu

229 (CIs) for first cardiac events for atenolol, metoprolol, propranolol, and nadolol were 0.71 (0.50 to

230 e prescribed common beta-blockers (atenolol, metoprolol, propranolol, or nadolol).

231 ine release was synergistically increased by metoprolol/ramipril or metoprolol/bradykinin (the latter

232 es of this study were to investigate whether metoprolol reduce the hemodynamic and metabolic burden i

233 Furthermore, metoprolol reduced aortic valve peak -7 mm Hg (-13, 0; P

234 had no effect on basal cAMP levels, whereas metoprolol reduced basal cAMP by approximately 25%.

235 Metoprolol reduced the incidence of malignant arrhythmia

236 beta1-adrenergic-receptor (ADRB1) antagonist metoprolol reduces infarct size in acute myocardial infa

237 perfusion administration of intravenous (IV) metoprolol reduces infarct size in ST-segment elevation

238 We hypothesize that metoprolol reduces infarct size when administered early

239 Here, we demonstrate that metoprolol reduces reperfusion injury by targeting the h

240 eeded/matched the high-permeability standard metoprolol, respectively.

241 eated pigs (30.9% of LV versus 30.6%; P=NS), metoprolol resulted in 5-fold-larger salvaged myocardium

242 ophil-platelet interactions, fully abrogated metoprolol's infarct-limiting effects.

243 Metoprolol should not be used for symptomatic LQT1 and L

244 Propranolol and metoprolol showed a rapid absorption and shorter transit

245 Carvedilol and metoprolol showed parallel beneficial effects in the mea

246 Metoprolol significantly reduced transgene-associated mo

247 Kline, Research Triangle, North Carolina) or metoprolol succinate (100 mg qd, Toprol XL, Astra Zeneca

248 hs chronic monotherapy with extended release metoprolol succinate (MET-ER), MET-ER with CCM, or no th

249 effects of standard doses of carvedilol and metoprolol succinate (metoprolol controlled release/exte

250 andomly assigned to receive extended-release metoprolol succinate (Toprol-XL, AstraZeneca) 200 mg or

251 effect of the beta(1)-selective beta-blocker metoprolol succinate controlled release/extended release

252 arvedilol BID versus 200 mg extended-release metoprolol succinate daily for 6 months) were assessed i

253 ve efficacy of equal doses of carvedilol and metoprolol succinate on survival in multicenter hospital

254 e mortality and treatment with carvedilol or metoprolol succinate was observed after either multivari

255 failure who were using either carvedilol or metoprolol succinate were identified in the Norwegian He

256 0 versus low <50 mg daily equivalent dose of metoprolol succinate).

257 )-AR blockade (beta(1)-RB) (extended-release metoprolol succinate, 100 mg QD) that was started 24 hou

258 eta1-receptor blockade (RB; extended-release metoprolol succinate, 100 mg QD; MR+beta1-RB) that was s

259 In contrast, the inverse agonist metoprolol suppresses interactions with Gs and promotes

260 Metoprolol tartrate (MPT) concentration (10 and 40% in E

261 arvedilol (n = 498) or 50- to 200-mg dose of metoprolol tartrate (n = 737), each twice daily.

262 Metoprolol tartrate and MS produce similar hemodynamic a

263 al-has compared carvedilol with short-acting metoprolol tartrate at different dose equivalents.

264 The superiority of carvedilol over metoprolol tartrate in one clinical trial is demonstrate

265 e is often attempted with a moderate dose of metoprolol tartrate, a beta-1-blocker that results in le

266 cts (single dose of 25 mg carvedilol, 100 mg metoprolol tartrate, and placebo).

267 e 25 mg twice daily) and 1518 to metoprolol (metoprolol tartrate, target dose 50 mg twice daily).

268 With metoprolol, TBARS values decreased from 4.7+/-0.9 nmol/m

269 eta-blocker (with greater responsiveness for metoprolol than carvedilol) and beta(1)-adrenergic recep

270 For 218 patients (105 receiving IV metoprolol), the median time from 15 mg metoprolol bolus

271 ective effect is influenced by the timing of metoprolol therapy having either a long or short metopro

272 Long-term metoprolol therapy improves cardiac performance and decr

273 This study examined the effect of long-term metoprolol therapy on renal sodium handling in an experi

274 Long term metoprolol therapy produced significant functional, exer

275 univariable analysis of the general sample, metoprolol therapy was associated with higher mortality

276 ngiography both before and after 6 months of metoprolol therapy with simultaneous micromanometry and

277 Efficacy of beta1-AR blockade by metoprolol to increase CPC survival and proliferation wa

278 (CSQ/betaARKct nontreated vs. CSQ/betaARKct metoprolol treated, 15 +/- 1 weeks vs. 25 +/- 2 weeks, P

279 nd microvascular obstruction is abolished in metoprolol-treated AMI patients.

280 A2C did not significantly affect survival in metoprolol-treated or carvedilol-treated HF patients in

281 ejection fraction significantly improved in metoprolol-treated pigs between days 4 and 22 (37.2% ver

282 ian time to death was increased by 33 hrs in metoprolol-treated rats (p = .03).

283 iac washout was lower during carvedilol than metoprolol treatment (12.9% +/- 3.9% vs. 22.1% +/- 2.8%,

284 53+/-19 mm Hg) were randomized to placebo or metoprolol treatment for 22 weeks.

285 Metoprolol treatment of rats with CHF results in an impr

286 When sorafenib-treated animals received metoprolol treatment post MI, the sorafenib-induced incr

287 pulmonary edema comparable to or better than metoprolol treatment.

288 locker therapy with atenolol, bisoprolol, or metoprolol underwent adenosine myocardial perfusion imag

289 ected acute MI onset were randomly allocated metoprolol (up to 15 mg intravenous then 200 mg oral dai

290 years, overall and in patients randomized to metoprolol versus carvedilol in the Carvedilol Or Metopr

291 fewer people having reinfarction (464 [2.0%] metoprolol vs 568 [2.5%] placebo; OR 0.82, 0.72-0.92; p=

292 for patients aged >/= 42 years who received metoprolol was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.25-1.10); in patients age

293 Allocation to metoprolol was associated with five fewer people having

294 After clinical stabilization, metoprolol was initiated at 6.25 mg twice a day and slow

295 When full dose metoprolol was readministered during chronic therapy, th

296 In vivo, the metabolism of metoprolol was significantly altered in BCN mice, in con

297 control, verapamil, diltiazem, atenolol, and metoprolol were qualitatively superior to digoxin and pl

298 omparable patients who were not treated with metoprolol were studied in a similar fashion and served

299 Pigs were allocated to IV metoprolol with a long (-25 min) or short (-5 min) pre-p

300 ents without contraindications received oral metoprolol within 24 hours.